Notebookcheck

Getac S410 (i5-8550U) Rugged Laptop Review

Rugged Kaby Lake-R. The CPU power of a traditional Ultrabook with the bells and whistles of a rugged laptop. Unless if you plan on mainly using the Getac at night, then we recommend opting for the higher-end SKU with the brighter backlight.

(Source: Computer Upgrade King)
(Source: Computer Upgrade King)

The Getac S410 is a semi-rugged laptop with many of the same CPU and even GPU options as mainstream consumer laptops. The system can be configured with a Core i3-7100U CPU and 768p display or up to a Core i7-8650U CPU with discrete GeForce GTX 950M graphics and an 800-nit 1080p display. Our test unit today is the mid-range Core i7-8550U option with integrated graphics and a 768p display retailing for about $1900 to $2100 USD.

Direct competitors in the 14-inch rugged laptop space include the Panasonic Toughbook CF-54 and Dell Latitude 14 7414 Rugged. For this review, we'll be comparing the Getac S410 against its closest competitors in terms of performance.

For the full list of features, we recommend checking out the official specifications here and here.

Getac S410
Graphics adapter
Intel UHD Graphics 620, Core: 300 MHz, Memory: 1200 MHz, DDR4, 23.20.16.4973
Memory
32768 MB 
, DDR4-2400, 10-10-10-28, Dual-Channel
Display
14 inch 16:9, 1366 x 768 pixel 112 PPI, CMN N140BGE-E33, TN PED, CMN1492, glossy: no
Mainboard
Intel Kaby Lake-U + iHDCP 2.2 Base PCH
Storage
CUKUSA 1 TB SATA SSD Q0526A, 1024 GB 
Soundcard
Intel Kaby Lake-U/Y PCH - High Definition Audio
Connections
1 USB 2.0, 3 USB 3.0 / 3.1 Gen1, 1 HDMI, 1 Kensington Lock, 1 Docking Station Port, Audio Connections: 3.5 mm combo, Card Reader: SD reader
Networking
Intel Ethernet Connection I219-LM (10/100/1000MBit), Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265 (a/b/g/n/ac), Bluetooth 4.2
Size
height x width x depth (in mm): 34.9 x 350 x 293 ( = 1.37 x 13.78 x 11.54 in)
Battery
46.6 Wh Lithium-Ion, removeable
Operating System
Microsoft Windows 10 Pro 64 Bit
Additional features
Speakers: Stereo, Keyboard: Chiclet, Keyboard Light: no, 36 Months Warranty, ruggedized
Weight
2.2 kg ( = 77.6 oz / 4.85 pounds), Power Supply: 363 g ( = 12.8 oz / 0.8 pounds)
Price
2100 USD
Note: The manufacturer may use components from different suppliers including display panels, drives or memory sticks with similar specifications.

 

Case

The Getac is both larger and heavier than the Panasonic Toughbook CF-54 in all dimensions. Consequently, its lid is slightly more rigid and less prone to twisting when compared to the Panasonic equivalent. The chassis maintains its MIL-STD-810G and IP52 certifications to withstand extreme temperature ranges, keyboard spills, and physical drops of up to 3 feet.

Construction quality is excellent with no noticeable creaking, defects, or unintended gaps. The 180-degree hinges are firm to prevent teetering when typing and the rubberized carrying handle provides a stronger grip than the metal handle of the Toughbook CF-54.

Connectivity

The base configuration integrates USB Type-A, HDMI, 3.5 mm audio, and RJ-45 with options for VGA and mini-SIM. Port positioning is slightly better than the Toughbook CF-54 since its rear ports are not blocked by the AC adapter cable.

Left: Removable 2.5-inch SATA III bay
Left: Removable 2.5-inch SATA III bay
Right: USB 2.0, 3.5 mm audio, AC adapter, Mini-SIM, SD reader, USB 3.0, AC adapter
Right: USB 2.0, 3.5 mm audio, AC adapter, Mini-SIM, SD reader, USB 3.0, AC adapter
Rear: HDMI, 2x USB 3.0, RJ-45, Kensington Lock
Rear: HDMI, 2x USB 3.0, RJ-45, Kensington Lock
(Source: Getac)
(Source: Getac)

Independent journalism is made possible by advertising. We show the least amount of ads whenever possible but we intentionally show more ads when an adblocker is used. Please, switch off ad blockers and support us!

SD Card Reader

The integrated card reader is average in speed at about 86 MB/s with our UHS-II test card while the same card reader on the Toughbook CF-54 can be over twice as fast.

SDCardreader Transfer Speed
average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs)
Panasonic Toughbook CF-54G2999VM
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
149.7 MB/s ∼100% +85%
Dell Latitude 14 7414 Rugged Extreme
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
136.2 MB/s ∼91% +68%
Getac S410
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
81.1 MB/s ∼54%
Fujitsu LifeBook U748
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
72.8 MB/s ∼49% -10%
Panasonic Toughbook CF-33
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
27.5 MB/s ∼18% -66%
maximum AS SSD Seq Read Test (1GB)
Dell Latitude 14 7414 Rugged Extreme
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
237.5 MB/s ∼100% +178%
Panasonic Toughbook CF-54G2999VM
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
179.6 MB/s ∼76% +110%
Getac S410
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
85.5 MB/s ∼36%
Fujitsu LifeBook U748
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
82.7 MB/s ∼35% -3%
Panasonic Toughbook CF-33
  (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II)
29.1 MB/s ∼12% -66%

Communication

The Getac utilizes the same Intel 8265 module as many modern Ultrabooks for similar WLAN and Bluetooth 4.2 speeds. Mini-SIM is supported for 4G LTE connectivity.

Networking
iperf3 Client (receive) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Getac S410
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
650 MBit/s ∼100%
Panasonic Toughbook CF-54G2999VM
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
630 MBit/s ∼97% -3%
Fujitsu LifeBook U748
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
624 MBit/s ∼96% -4%
Dell Latitude 14 7414 Rugged Extreme
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8260
492 MBit/s ∼76% -24%
Panasonic Toughbook CF-33
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
197 MBit/s ∼30% -70%
iperf3 Client (transmit) TCP 1 m 4M x10
Dell Latitude 14 7414 Rugged Extreme
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8260
661 MBit/s ∼100% +23%
Getac S410
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
538 MBit/s ∼81%
Panasonic Toughbook CF-54G2999VM
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
502 MBit/s ∼76% -7%
Fujitsu LifeBook U748
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
455 MBit/s ∼69% -15%
Panasonic Toughbook CF-33
Intel Dual Band Wireless-AC 8265
223 MBit/s ∼34% -59%

Security

Both TPM 2.0 and a Kensington Lock are included in the base configuration with options for a fingerprint scanner, Smart Card reader, RFID, and Windows Hello.

Maintenance

Serviceability is limited as there is no convenient maintenance cover for accessing motherboard components.

(Source: Cukusa.com)
(Source: Cukusa.com)

Accessories and Warranty

Optional proprietary accessories make use of the pins underneath the system. A full list of compatible attachments can be found here.

A three-year limited warranty comes standard.

Input Devices

Keyboard

The keyboard keys are firmer and with less clatter than the keys on the Toughbook CF-54. However, the system suffers from the same small Arrow keys and the keyboard backlight is included only on higher configurations.

Additional P1 and P2 auxiliary buttons sit near the Power button. P1 toggles the screen on and off while P2 toggles "Sunlight Readable" mode. We can measure no differences in backlight brightness when "Sunlight Readable" mode is activated since our SKU is not configured to support the feature.

Touchpad

The small trackpad (8.5 x 4 cm) is just slightly larger than the trackpad on the Toughbook CF-54 (8 x 4 cm). Nonetheless, cursor control still feels cramped especially when moving vertically. The trackpad does not appear to support Microsoft Precision features.

The dedicated mouse keys are firmer and louder than the ones on the Toughbook CF-54. Unfortunately, feedback is uneven as the right key is softer and spongier than the left key.

Display

Subpixel array (112 PPI). Onscreen content appears grainy and not as sharp as a glossy display
Subpixel array (112 PPI). Onscreen content appears grainy and not as sharp as a glossy display

While 800-nit and 1000-nit touchscreen options exist, our configuration utilizes the baseline 768p panel with a maximum brightness of 265 nits according to our own measurements. This is dim even by Ultrabook standards where 300 or 400+ nits is a common find. Users who intend to use the Getac outdoors under sunlight should consider the brighter backlight options.

Contrast and colors are poor on our Getac even before performing any measurements. Similar Chi Mei N140BGE TN panels can also be found on the old Dell Latitude 14 3470Lenovo IdeaPad S405, and the Asus P45VJ. Consequently, all of these notebooks also exhibit subpar contrast and colors.

229.5
cd/m²
233.6
cd/m²
221.1
cd/m²
255.8
cd/m²
265.1
cd/m²
239.8
cd/m²
250.2
cd/m²
273.8
cd/m²
242
cd/m²
Distribution of brightness
X-Rite i1Pro 2
Maximum: 273.8 cd/m² Average: 245.7 cd/m² Minimum: 2 cd/m²
Brightness Distribution: 81 %
Center on Battery: 265.1 cd/m²
Contrast: 457:1 (Black: 0.58 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 14.24 | 0.4-29.43 Ø6.2, calibrated: 3.94
ΔE Greyscale 14.2 | 0.64-98 Ø6.5
61% sRGB (Argyll 3D) 38.7% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 3D)
Gamma: 2.03
Getac S410
CMN N140BGE-E33, TN PED, 14, 1366x768
Panasonic Toughbook CF-54G2999VM
B140XTN, AUO2E3C, TN LED, 14, 1366x768
Dell Latitude 14 7414 Rugged Extreme
Sharp LQ140K1, IPS, 14, 1366x768
Fujitsu LifeBook U748
LG, LP140WF6-SPF1, IPS, 14, 1920x1080
Panasonic Toughbook CF-33
Manufacturer unknown, ID: TMA1200, IPS, 12, 2160x1440
Dell Latitude 5491
AU Optronics AUO133D B140HAK, IPS, 14, 1920x1080
Response Times
-14%
-58%
-35%
-34%
-48%
Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% *
41.2 (21.6, 19.6)
43.2 (16.8, 26.4)
-5%
43 (20, 23)
-4%
39.2 (20.4, 18.8)
5%
30 (11, 19)
27%
38.4 (18.8, 19.6)
7%
Response Time Black / White *
14 (9.6, 4.4)
17.2 (11.2, 6)
-23%
27 (17, 10)
-93%
24.4 (12.8, 11.6)
-74%
29 (11, 18)
-107%
28.4 (16.4, 12)
-103%
PWM Frequency
877.2 (99)
200 (20)
-77%
685
-22%
Screen
-12%
35%
53%
131%
19%
Brightness middle
265.1
174.5
-34%
493
86%
334
26%
571
115%
189.4
-29%
Brightness
246
164
-33%
456
85%
313
27%
555
126%
196
-20%
Brightness Distribution
81
71
-12%
81
0%
89
10%
89
10%
82
1%
Black Level *
0.58
0.6
-3%
0.53
9%
0.41
29%
0.11
81%
0.2
66%
Contrast
457
291
-36%
930
104%
815
78%
5191
1036%
947
107%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 *
14.24
12.05
15%
11.08
22%
2.2
85%
22.7
-59%
6.74
53%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 max. *
26.66
27.5
-3%
15.11
43%
5.7
79%
34.14
-28%
25.5
4%
Colorchecker DeltaE2000 calibrated *
3.94
4.34
-10%
4.73
-20%
Greyscale DeltaE2000 *
14.2
14.8
-4%
11.99
16%
2.9
80%
13.6
4%
5.5
61%
Gamma
2.03 108%
1.4 157%
4.03 55%
2.34 94%
5.51 40%
2.37 93%
CCT
17152 38%
14529 45%
10872 60%
6855 95%
6998 93%
6740 96%
Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998)
38.7
35.7
-8%
36
-7%
65.3
69%
42.5
10%
37
-4%
Color Space (Percent of sRGB)
61
56.2
-8%
56
-8%
91.8
50%
67.02
10%
53.8
-12%
Total Average (Program / Settings)
-13% / -13%
-12% / 14%
9% / 39%
49% / 93%
-15% / 9%

* ... smaller is better

Color space is very limited at just 61 percent and 39 percent of sRGB and AdobeRGB, respectively. Colors are noticeably shallower and less accurate when compared to mainstream consumer laptops.

vs. sRGB
vs. sRGB
vs. AdobeRGB
vs. AdobeRGB

Further measurements with a X-Rite spectrophotometer reveal inaccurate grayscale and an overly cool color temperature as suspected. We highly recommend applying our calibrated ICC profile above to greatly improve the accuracy of the display.

Grayscale before calibration
Grayscale before calibration
Saturation Sweeps before calibration
Saturation Sweeps before calibration
ColorChecker before calibration
ColorChecker before calibration
Grayscale after calibration
Grayscale after calibration
Saturation Sweeps after calibration
Saturation Sweeps after calibration
ColorChecker after calibration
ColorChecker after calibration

Display Response Times

Display response times show how fast the screen is able to change from one color to the next. Slow response times can lead to afterimages and can cause moving objects to appear blurry (ghosting). Gamers of fast-paced 3D titles should pay special attention to fast response times.
       Response Time Black to White
14 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 9.6 ms rise
↘ 4.4 ms fall
The screen shows good response rates in our tests, but may be too slow for competitive gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.8 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 12 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (25.6 ms).
       Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey
41.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined↗ 21.6 ms rise
↘ 19.6 ms fall
The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers.
In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.9 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 52 % of all devices are better.
This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (41 ms).

Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)

To dim the screen, some notebooks will simply cycle the backlight on and off in rapid succession - a method called Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) . This cycling frequency should ideally be undetectable to the human eye. If said frequency is too low, users with sensitive eyes may experience strain or headaches or even notice the flickering altogether.
Screen flickering / PWM detected 877.2 Hz ≤ 99 % brightness setting

The display backlight flickers at 877.2 Hz (Likely utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 99 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting.

The frequency of 877.2 Hz is quite high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering.

In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8929 (minimum: 43 - maximum: 142900) Hz was measured.

Outdoor visibility is average at best when under shade. Otherwise, ambient light will easily overwhelm and wash out onscreen content. Other rugged devices, like the Toughbook CF-33 or Dell Latitude 14 Rugged, have much brighter displays that are better fit for outdoor use.

Display on overcast day
Display on overcast day
Display on overcast day
Display on overcast day
Display under shade
Display under shade
Narrow TN viewing angles
Narrow TN viewing angles

Performance

Processor

CineBench R15
CineBench R15

CPU performance is 12 percent slower than the average i7-8550U in our database due to the limited Turbo Boost potential of the Getac as our Stress Test section below will show. Nonetheless, the CPU is still noticeably faster than the last generation i5-7300U as found on the Toughbook CF-54 because of its higher number of simultaneous threads.

When running CineBench R15 Multi-Thread in a loop, the initial score of 538 points drops to about 498 points after just a single loop to suggest a short-lived unsustainable maximum Turbo Boost at the very start of the test.

See our dedicated page on the Core i7-8550U for more technical information and benchmark comparisons.

0102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370380390400410420430440450460470480490500510520530540Tooltip
Getac S410 UHD Graphics 620, 8550U, CUKUSA 1 TB SATA SSD Q0526A; CPU Multi 64Bit: Ø497 (492.45-538.66)
Panasonic Toughbook CF-54G2999VM HD Graphics 620, 7300U, Seagate BarraCuda Compute 1TB ST1000LM048; CPU Multi 64Bit: Ø344 (340.23-352.17)
Cinebench R15
CPU Single 64Bit
Dell G3 15 3579
Intel Core i5-8300H
168 Points ∼77% +3%
Microsoft Surface Pro (2017) i7
Intel Core i7-7660U
163 Points ∼75% 0%
Getac S410
Intel Core i7-8550U
163 Points ∼75%
Average Intel Core i7-8550U
  (108 - 172, n=67)
160 Points ∼73% -2%
HP EliteBook x360 1030 G3
Intel Core i5-8250U
141 Points ∼65% -13%
HP ProBook 645 G4 3UP62EA
AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U
139 Points ∼64% -15%
Panasonic Toughbook CF-54G2999VM
Intel Core i5-7300U
125 Points ∼57% -23%
Dell Latitude 14 7414 Rugged Extreme
Intel Core i5-6300U
111 Points ∼51% -32%
Microsoft Surface Go MHN-00003
Intel Pentium Gold 4415Y
65 Points ∼30% -60%
Asus Transformer Book T102HA-GR022T
Intel Atom x5-Z8350
31 Points ∼14% -81%
CPU Multi 64Bit
Dell G3 15 3579
Intel Core i5-8300H
768 Points ∼18% +54%
HP ProBook 645 G4 3UP62EA
AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U
589 Points ∼13% +18%
Average Intel Core i7-8550U
  (301 - 761, n=69)
575 Points ∼13% +15%
Getac S410
Intel Core i7-8550U
498 Points ∼11%
HP EliteBook x360 1030 G3
Intel Core i5-8250U
493 Points ∼11% -1%
Microsoft Surface Pro (2017) i7
Intel Core i7-7660U
410 (min: 335.35, max: 409.45) Points ∼9% -18%
Panasonic Toughbook CF-54G2999VM
Intel Core i5-7300U
344 Points ∼8% -31%
Dell Latitude 14 7414 Rugged Extreme
Intel Core i5-6300U
310 Points ∼7% -38%
Microsoft Surface Go MHN-00003
Intel Pentium Gold 4415Y
164 Points ∼4% -67%
Asus Transformer Book T102HA-GR022T
Intel Atom x5-Z8350
100 Points ∼2% -80%
Cinebench R15 CPU Single 64Bit
163 Points
Cinebench R15 CPU Multi 64Bit
498 Points
Cinebench R15 OpenGL 64Bit
49.5 fps
Cinebench R15 Ref. Match 64Bit
97.8 %
Help

System Performance

PCMark benchmarks rank our Getac slightly higher than our Toughbook CF-54 due to its faster CPU, primary SSD, and overall smoother performance. We experienced no major software issues during our time with the review unit aside form a single BSOD that we were unable to repeat.

PCMark 8 Home Accelerated
PCMark 8 Home Accelerated
PCMark 10
PCMark 10
PCMark 10 - Score
Dell Latitude 5491
GeForce MX130, 8850H, Toshiba XG5 KXG50ZNV512G
4269 Points ∼55% +8%
Getac S410
UHD Graphics 620, 8550U, CUKUSA 1 TB SATA SSD Q0526A
3958 Points ∼51%
Panasonic Toughbook CF-33
HD Graphics 620, 7300U, Toshiba SG5 256GB THNSNK256GVN8
3329 Points ∼43% -16%
Panasonic Toughbook CF-54G2999VM
HD Graphics 620, 7300U, Seagate BarraCuda Compute 1TB ST1000LM048
2972 Points ∼38% -25%
Fujitsu LifeBook U748
UHD Graphics 620, 8250U, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
2364 Points ∼30% -40%
PCMark 8 - Home Score Accelerated v2
Getac S410
UHD Graphics 620, 8550U, CUKUSA 1 TB SATA SSD Q0526A
4197 Points ∼69%
Dell Latitude 5491
GeForce MX130, 8850H, Toshiba XG5 KXG50ZNV512G
4174 Points ∼69% -1%
Panasonic Toughbook CF-54G2999VM
HD Graphics 620, 7300U, Seagate BarraCuda Compute 1TB ST1000LM048
3906 Points ∼64% -7%
Dell Latitude 14 7414 Rugged Extreme
HD Graphics 520, 6300U, Liteonit CV3-8D128
3655 Points ∼60% -13%
Fujitsu LifeBook U748
UHD Graphics 620, 8250U, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
3542 Points ∼58% -16%
Panasonic Toughbook CF-33
HD Graphics 620, 7300U, Toshiba SG5 256GB THNSNK256GVN8
3518 Points ∼58% -16%
PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2
4197 points
Help

Storage Devices

Two internal storage bays are available. The first is a removable 2.5-inch SATA III slot on the left edge of the unit while the second is an optional onboard OPAL SSD. Our test unit is equipped with a removable white label 1 TB SSD with sequential read and write rates on par with standard SATA III SSDs. More benchmark comparisons can be found on our table of SSDs and HDDs.

CDM 5.5
CDM 5.5
AS SSD
AS SSD
CUKUSA 1 TB SATA SSD Q0526A
CDM 5/6 Read Seq Q32T1: 553.8 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write Seq Q32T1: 522.9 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Read 4K Q32T1: 203.5 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write 4K Q32T1: 211.4 MB/s
CDM 5 Read Seq: 514.2 MB/s
CDM 5 Write Seq: 460.6 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Read 4K: 31.85 MB/s
CDM 5/6 Write 4K: 73.99 MB/s

GPU Performance

3DMark 11
3DMark 11

The UHD Graphics 620 is performing exactly where we expect it to be when compared to the average UHD Graphics 620 in our database. In other words, the benefits are marginal at best if upgrading from the last generation HD Graphics 520 or HD Graphics 620. Users who may need more graphics power should consider the GeForce GTX 950M option for a raw graphics boost of over 150 percent.

3DMark 11
1280x720 Performance Combined
MSI Prestige PS42 8RB-059
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, 8550U
4354 Points ∼24% +148%
Asus N752VX-GC131T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M, 6700HQ
3682 Points ∼20% +109%
Dell Latitude 5491
NVIDIA GeForce MX130, 8850H
2958 Points ∼16% +68%
Microsoft Surface Pro (2017) i7
Intel Iris Plus Graphics 640, 7660U
2184 Points ∼12% +24%
HP ProBook 645 G4 3UP62EA
AMD Radeon RX Vega 8, PRO 2500U
1945 Points ∼11% +11%
Getac S410
Intel UHD Graphics 620, 8550U
1758 Points ∼10%
Panasonic Toughbook CF-54G2999VM
Intel HD Graphics 620, 7300U
1720 Points ∼9% -2%
Average Intel UHD Graphics 620
  (959 - 3031, n=105)
1509 Points ∼8% -14%
Panasonic Toughbook CF-33
Intel HD Graphics 620, 7300U
1468 Points ∼8% -16%
Dell Latitude 14 7414 Rugged Extreme
Intel HD Graphics 520, 6300U
1239 Points ∼7% -30%
Microsoft Surface Go MHN-00003
Intel UHD Graphics 615, 4415Y
1134 Points ∼6% -35%
Asus Transformer Book T102HA-GR022T
Intel HD Graphics 400 (Braswell), Z8350
392 Points ∼2% -78%
1280x720 Performance GPU
MSI Prestige PS42 8RB-059
NVIDIA GeForce MX150, 8550U
4686 Points ∼9% +165%
Asus N752VX-GC131T
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M, 6700HQ
4457 Points ∼9% +152%
Dell Latitude 5491
NVIDIA GeForce MX130, 8850H
3041 Points ∼6% +72%
HP ProBook 645 G4 3UP62EA
AMD Radeon RX Vega 8, PRO 2500U
2954 Points ∼6% +67%
Microsoft Surface Pro (2017) i7
Intel Iris Plus Graphics 640, 7660U
2493 Points ∼5% +41%
Getac S410
Intel UHD Graphics 620, 8550U
1766 Points ∼3%
Average Intel UHD Graphics 620
  (1235 - 3203, n=105)
1694 Points ∼3% -4%
Panasonic Toughbook CF-54G2999VM
Intel HD Graphics 620, 7300U
1687 Points ∼3% -4%
Panasonic Toughbook CF-33
Intel HD Graphics 620, 7300U
1583 Points ∼3% -10%
Dell Latitude 14 7414 Rugged Extreme
Intel HD Graphics 520, 6300U
1369 Points ∼3% -22%
Microsoft Surface Go MHN-00003
Intel UHD Graphics 615, 4415Y
1257 Points ∼2% -29%
Asus Transformer Book T102HA-GR022T
Intel HD Graphics 400 (Braswell), Z8350
349 Points ∼1% -80%
3DMark 11 Performance
1983 points
Help
low med. high ultra
BioShock Infinite (2013) 74.633.129.4fps

Stress Test

We stress the notebook with synthetic loads to identify for any potential throttling or stability issues. When subjected to Prime95, the CPU can be observed running as high as 3.6 GHz for the first few seconds until hitting a core temperature of 95 C. Thereafter, clock rates throttle to the low 2.0 GHz range in order to maintain a cooler core temperature of 77 C as shown by our screenshots below. When considering that the base clock rate of the i7-8550U is 1.8 GHz, the Getac is able to sustain only minimal Turbo Boost benefits over long periods. Running both Prime95 and FurMark simultaneously will throttle the CPU even further with core temperature plateauing at 78 C.

Running on battery power will throttle CPU performance while leaving GPU performance intact. A 3DMark 11 run on batteries returns Physics and Graphics scores of 4062 points and 1816 points, respectively, compared to 6635 points and 1766 points when on mains.

System idle
System idle
Prime95 stress (first few minutes)
Prime95 stress (first few minutes)
Prime95 stress (after 20 minutes)
Prime95 stress (after 20 minutes)
Prime95+FurMark stress
Prime95+FurMark stress
CPU Clock (GHz) GPU Clock (MHz) Average CPU Temperature (°C)
Prime95 Stress ~2.0 -- 80
Prime95 + FurMark Stress 1.0 698 78

Emissions

System Noise

There is no fan noise when idling or during very low loads. Our unit, however, exhibits slight electronic noise or coil whine that we feel is unacceptable for a system in this price range and category. It's thankfully not noticeable unless if placing an ear near the keyboard keys.

When running 3DMark 06, fan noise jumps to about 30 dB(A). Maximum processing load with Prime95 bumps fan noise to 33 dB(A) which is still rather quiet compared to Ultrabooks. The system never jumps any higher unlike on the Toughbook CF-54 for an overall quieter experience.

Noise Level

Idle
28.4 / 28.4 / 28.4 dB(A)
Load
30.3 / 33.3 dB(A)
  red to green bar
 
 
30 dB
silent
40 dB(A)
audible
50 dB(A)
loud
 
min: dark, med: mid, max: light   Audix TM1, Arta (15 cm distance)   environment noise: 28.4 dB(A)
Getac S410
UHD Graphics 620, 8550U, CUKUSA 1 TB SATA SSD Q0526A
Panasonic Toughbook CF-54G2999VM
HD Graphics 620, 7300U, Seagate BarraCuda Compute 1TB ST1000LM048
Dell Latitude 14 7414 Rugged Extreme
HD Graphics 520, 6300U, Liteonit CV3-8D128
Fujitsu LifeBook U748
UHD Graphics 620, 8250U, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP
Panasonic Toughbook CF-33
HD Graphics 620, 7300U, Toshiba SG5 256GB THNSNK256GVN8
Dell Latitude 5491
GeForce MX130, 8850H, Toshiba XG5 KXG50ZNV512G
Noise
-5%
-3%
-5%
-7%
-19%
off / environment *
28.4
28.3
-0%
30.2
-6%
29.3
-3%
30.3
-7%
29.5
-4%
Idle Minimum *
28.4
28.8
-1%
30.2
-6%
29.3
-3%
30.3
-7%
29.5
-4%
Idle Average *
28.4
28.8
-1%
30.2
-6%
29.3
-3%
30.3
-7%
29.5
-4%
Idle Maximum *
28.4
29.1
-2%
30.2
-6%
29.9
-5%
30.5
-7%
31.5
-11%
Load Average *
30.3
31.3
-3%
30.2
-0%
32.5
-7%
30.5
-1%
46.2
-52%
Load Maximum *
33.3
40
-20%
31.7
5%
36.6
-10%
36.6
-10%
46.2
-39%

* ... smaller is better

Temperature

Rear exhaust
Rear exhaust

Surface temperatures when idling are actually quite warm at about 30 C and 34 C on the top and bottom, respectively. When under heavy processing load, these same hot spots can reach well over 40 C or over degrees warmer than on the Toughbook CF-54. Fortunately, these spots are towards the rear of the unit away from the palm rests and keyboard keys for comfortable use no matter the load.

System idle (top)
System idle (top)
System idle (bottom)
System idle (bottom)
Maximum stress (top)
Maximum stress (top)
Maximum stress (bottom)
Maximum stress (bottom)
Max. Load
 24.6 °C
76 F
42.6 °C
109 F
32.4 °C
90 F
 
 24.6 °C
76 F
32 °C
90 F
27.4 °C
81 F
 
 27 °C
81 F
26.8 °C
80 F
24.6 °C
76 F
 
Maximum: 42.6 °C = 109 F
Average: 29.1 °C = 84 F
44.6 °C
112 F
36.2 °C
97 F
25.6 °C
78 F
32.4 °C
90 F
49 °C
120 F
26.6 °C
80 F
26.4 °C
80 F
27 °C
81 F
29.2 °C
85 F
Maximum: 49 °C = 120 F
Average: 33 °C = 91 F
Power Supply (max.)  38 °C = 100 F | Room Temperature 22.6 °C = 73 F | Fluke 62 Mini IR Thermometer
(+) The average temperature for the upper side under maximal load is 29.1 °C / 84 F, compared to the average of 29.4 °C / 85 F for the devices in the class Office.
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 42.6 °C / 109 F, compared to the average of 33.9 °C / 93 F, ranging from 21.2 to 62.5 °C for the class Office.
(-) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 49 °C / 120 F, compared to the average of 36.4 °C / 98 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 24.4 °C / 76 F, compared to the device average of 29.4 °C / 85 F.
(+) The palmrests and touchpad are cooler than skin temperature with a maximum of 27 °C / 80.6 F and are therefore cool to the touch.
(±) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 28.3 °C / 82.9 F (+1.3 °C / 2.3 F).

Speakers

Pink noise
Pink noise

The stereo speakers are louder than the speakers on the Toughbook CF-54. Bass is still poor as one would expect as shown by our pink noise chart. Maximum volume introduces no static or chassis reverberations.

dB(A) 0102030405060708090Deep BassMiddle BassHigh BassLower RangeMidsHigher MidsLower HighsMid HighsUpper HighsSuper Highs2036.942.52536.842.33137.542.34035.842.55034.243.36333.941.98032.942.410031.946.112531.746.316031.347.620030.248.12502951.631527.956.340027.957.450026.858.663026.262.780025.866.1100025.271.4125024.676.2160024.172.8200023.870.3250023.769.1315023.468.1400023.365.1500023.367.9630023.162.9800023.162.91000022.866.41250022.762.61600022.661.2SPL36.681.7N2.848.5median 24.6median 62.9Delta2.75.935.335.132.931.831.83236.535.132.428.93328.936.328.848.32761.52752.924.860.92462.822.763.32269.521.267.82174.82075.919.472.718.97117.770.117.86917.671.817.668.117.671.417.673.717.670.417.571.617.671.617.669.617.459.717.583.630.662.51.5median 69.6median 17.84.62.4hearing rangehide median Pink NoiseGetac S410Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz
Frequency diagram (checkboxes can be checked and unchecked to compare devices)
Getac S410 audio analysis

(±) | speaker loudness is average but good (76.18 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 13.6% lower than median
(+) | bass is linear (6.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 6.5% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (8.4% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 3.1% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (6.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(±) | linearity of overall sound is average (17.9% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 28% of all tested devices in this class were better, 9% similar, 63% worse
» The best had a delta of 8%, average was 21%, worst was 51%
Compared to all devices tested
» 30% of all tested devices were better, 7% similar, 63% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz audio analysis

(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 11.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (14.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (9.3% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 2% of all tested devices in this class were better, 2% similar, 96% worse
» The best had a delta of 8%, average was 19%, worst was 50%
Compared to all devices tested
» 2% of all tested devices were better, 1% similar, 98% worse
» The best had a delta of 3%, average was 21%, worst was 53%

Energy Management

Power Consumption

Prime95 initiated at 20s mark
Prime95 initiated at 20s mark

The Getac is slightly less efficient than the Toughbook CF-54 during low loads due in part to the brighter display. Otherwise, both are very similar on average.

Power consumption when running Prime95 can be as high as 76 W as shown by our graph on the right. This is unsustainable, however, and consumption quickly drops to a steady 32 W. This behavior reflects the Turbo Boost clock rates from our Stress Test section above.

The very small (~11 x 4.5 x 3 cm) 65 W AC adapter is sufficient for the system when taking into account its short Turbo Boost benefits.

Power Consumption
Off / Standbydarklight 0.27 / 0.78 Watt
Idledarkmidlight 5.6 / 7.9 / 8.4 Watt
Load midlight 32.8 / 34.3 Watt
 color bar
Key: min: dark, med: mid, max: light        Metrahit Energy
Getac S410
8550U, UHD Graphics 620, CUKUSA 1 TB SATA SSD Q0526A, TN PED, 1366x768, 14
Panasonic Toughbook CF-54G2999VM
7300U, HD Graphics 620, Seagate BarraCuda Compute 1TB ST1000LM048, TN LED, 1366x768, 14
Dell Latitude 14 7414 Rugged Extreme
6300U, HD Graphics 520, Liteonit CV3-8D128, IPS, 1366x768, 14
Fujitsu LifeBook U748
8250U, UHD Graphics 620, Samsung PM961 MZVLW256HEHP, IPS, 1920x1080, 14
Panasonic Toughbook CF-33
7300U, HD Graphics 620, Toshiba SG5 256GB THNSNK256GVN8, IPS, 2160x1440, 12
Power Consumption
8%
-41%
8%
30%
Idle Minimum *
5.6
4.4
21%
6.8
-21%
3.33
41%
3.6
36%
Idle Average *
7.9
6.3
20%
13.4
-70%
6.9
13%
4.6
42%
Idle Maximum *
8.4
6.5
23%
16.8
-100%
8.2
2%
5.15
39%
Load Average *
32.8
36.3
-11%
35.2
-7%
29.4
10%
27
18%
Load Maximum *
34.3
38.3
-12%
36.3
-6%
43.4
-27%
29.2
15%

* ... smaller is better

Battery Life

The removable 46.6 Wh Li-Ion battery is decent in capacity if not slightly on the small side. Despite being larger than the battery in the Panasonic Toughbook CF-54, runtimes are shorter by about 40 minutes when subjected to the same WLAN loads. Expect a real-world battery life of just over 5 hours. Optional secondary batteries can boost runtimes if needed.

Charging from near empty to full capacity is relatively quick at just under 1.5 hours.

Battery Runtime
NBC WiFi Websurfing Battery Test 1.3
5h 12min
Getac S410
8550U, UHD Graphics 620, 46.6 Wh
Panasonic Toughbook CF-54G2999VM
7300U, HD Graphics 620, 33 Wh
Dell Latitude 14 7414 Rugged Extreme
6300U, HD Graphics 520, 97 Wh
Fujitsu LifeBook U748
8250U, UHD Graphics 620, 50 Wh
Panasonic Toughbook CF-33
7300U, HD Graphics 620, 44 Wh
Dell Latitude 5491
8850H, GeForce MX130, 68 Wh
Battery Runtime
13%
101%
25%
52%
85%
Reader / Idle
937
1005
WiFi v1.3
312
352
13%
628
101%
390
25%
475
52%
577
85%
Load
106
76

Pros

+ quick-release primary 2.5-inch SATA III bay
+ more rigid lid than the Toughbook CF-54
+ modern Intel 8th gen CPU options
+ strong semi-rugged chassis
+ generally quiet fan noise

Cons

- base SKU is missing keyboard backlight, webcam, VGA, and other common features
- display backlight could be brighter for base SKU
- pulse-width modulation for brightness control
- trackpad keys have uneven feedback
- more difficult serviceability
- slight electronic noise
- small Arrow keys

Verdict

In review: Getac S410. Test model provided by Computer Upgrade King
In review: Getac S410. Test model provided by Computer Upgrade King

The closest competitor to the Getac S410 at the moment is the Panasonic Toughbook CF-54. The Getac is the stronger option if performance is priority because of its faster CPU and GPU options, more rigid display, quieter fans, louder speakers, and brighter backlight for the base configuration. On the other hand, it falls short on a few key aspects. Serviceability is more difficult and pulse-width modulation is present on nearly all brightness levels which could impact users sensitive to onscreen flickering. Its chassis is also larger and heavier than the Panasonic alternative.

Much like on the Panasonic, display quality is one of the weaker characteristics of the Getac. We can't speak for the higher-end 1080 option, but applying our ICC profile to the base 768p option addresses the poor grayscale and color accuracy of the default settings. Users should consider investing in the brighter "Sunlight Readable" feature if frequent outdoor use is expected.

Modern CPU and GPU hardware in a rugged design for a powerful first impression when compared to its competitors. Hopefully, future revisions will drop the substandard 768p display option for a higher quality and brighter panel on the base configurations.

Getac S410 - 10/08/2018 v6
Allen Ngo

Chassis
90 / 98 → 91%
Keyboard
73%
Pointing Device
68%
Connectivity
50 / 80 → 63%
Weight
62 / 20-67 → 89%
Battery
83%
Display
76%
Games Performance
59 / 68 → 86%
Application Performance
93 / 92 → 100%
Temperature
91%
Noise
97%
Audio
50%
Average
74%
82%
Office - Weighted Average

Pricecompare

static version load dynamic
Loading Comments
Comment on this article
Please share our article, every link counts!
> Notebook / Laptop Reviews and News > Reviews > Getac S410 (i5-8550U) Rugged Laptop Review
Allen Ngo, 2018-10- 8 (Update: 2018-10- 8)
Allen Ngo
Allen Ngo - US Editor in Chief
After graduating with a B.S. in environmental hydrodynamics from the University of California, I studied reactor physics to become licensed by the U.S. NRC to operate nuclear reactors. There's a striking level of appreciation you gain for everyday consumer electronics after working with modern nuclear reactivity systems astonishingly powered by computers from the 80s. When I'm not managing day-to-day activities and US review articles on Notebookcheck, you can catch me following the eSports scene and the latest gaming news.